If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

RED. It walks a fine line between utter brilliance and complete shit. It's hilarious at some parts but I don't know, some parts of the movie felt a bit cheesy, like it's trying too hard to be funny. Though, Malkovich was good in this, if I say so myself

Originally Posted by Tikey

Not a decision I'm comfortable with.
At least he simply has to make something better than the last trilogy, which isn't something very hard actually.

Eh...It was when I first watched it but then I watched it again and realized how hollow it was, it was all flash and no substance and went against the films of previous star treks which actually had some philosophical points and themes and I'm even talking about the rubbish ones there.

Watched it in a theater with original voice acting and Russian subtitles. Sound itself wasn't very good( maybe theaters fault, not sure), some dialogues were buried under a very loud music or sound effects, so I had to look at subtitles more often then I wanted to in cases when I'd normally have no problem understanding.

I don't usually enjoy Tarantino movies but this was entertaining and funny. A bit disturbing sometimes. Violence was over the top and funny in a black comedy way, except when a girl recieved lashes or guy got ripped to shreds by dogs. But that wasn't supposed to be funy. Everything else was more or less a long build up for the final shootout. And the second one.

Acting was ok. Not sure why so many people are giving so much credit to C. Waltz. Sure he is a good actor, but there wasn't anything outstanding in his performance in my opinion, maybe that bit at the end but not through the whole movie. Dicaprio was playing himself it seems, not bad. Jamie Fox was ok, his wife character had little screentime and was mostly just a plot device. Samuel Jackson was the only one who impressed me in any way, largely because he didn't look like his usual badass character and I thought he is stuck in that role forever.

Well, about "themes" or "messages", I'll leave analysis to Americans... but I didn't see slavery/racism( or anything really) as a major theme of this movie and doubt Tarantino or whoever made a script cared much about that. Doubt anyone even thought "Slavey and racism are bad" as a message of this move. We have some bad guys, they are slavers or KKK so killing them in gruesome OTT ways is apparently accptable. And exactly that happens. Fin.

Very nice and funny movie. Long but never boring. Visually good without a CGI overload.

Eh...It was when I first watched it but then I watched it again and realized how hollow it was, it was all flash and no substance and went against the films of previous star treks which actually had some philosophical points and themes and I'm even talking about the rubbish ones there.

Well Star Trek was written by the guys who did stuff like Transformers and Zorro (which is fine, but different to what Star Wars needs). The Empire Strikes back writer is back on for the new Star Wars, as well as the guy who wrote Little Miss Sunshine and Toy Story 3. I have hope.

Flight: Up until now I was convinced that Daniel-Day Lewis would win the Oscar for his acting in "Lincoln", but after seeing "Flight" I think Denzel Washington is even more deserving of the recognition. His portrayal of the alcoholic pilot Whip Whitaker managed to get under my skin like nothing else I've seen in 2012/13. You cheer every time he manages to fight his addiction and you cringe every time he fails. Of course one of the reasons his acting works so well is because he's backed up by an amazing supporting cast. John Goodman in particular deserves some kind of special award for most consistent performance. He's been in three films I've seen in the past year and he's excelled in every single one.

The plot itself is fairly unspectacular and after the tense beginning it moves at a fairly slow pace. This works to the film's advantage however, as it puts the focus on the characters and their interactions. I was especially impressed by how the story works both as an actual series of events and as a metaphor for Whitaker's struggle, with the other characters representing his conflicting personalities. Flight is definitely worth a recommendation if you're interested in the subject matter.

Intouchables: I must have been the last person in Europe that hadn't actually seen this film yet. It was a minor sensation when it came out in France and has since done very well in a lot of other countries. After watching it I can easily see why this was the case. It's difficult to describe the film's qualities though, because from an outside perspective there isn't anything especially noteworthy about it. The technical aspects are all decent but hardly outstanding and no individual scene is all that memorable. Even the pacing feels a bit off, the second half just sort of goes on without building towards an actual climax. Why is it so good then? Because it's one of those rare films that just make you feel good about the world. It's a joy to watch Philippe and Triss spend their days together. There's no real malice in the film, no villains or large central conflict, it's simply an ode to human compassion and a celebration of being alive. In that vein it's similar to another recent French film, "Bienvenue chez les Ch'tis". Both ultimately rather simple works that manage to capture your heart and leave you with a smile on your face.

Vantage Point: I bought this on a whim because I'm a big fan of "Rashomon" and its narrative gimmick of telling the same events from different viewpoints. Unfortunately, in that aspect Vantage Point falls flat. Unlike Rashomon, where the unreliabe narrators were used to deliberately contradict earlier events and offer a completely new perspective, they often feel like an unnecessary addition here. The story could just as easily have been told using conventional methods. The film itself even seems to realize this as the second half essentially abandons the gimmick altogether, devolving into a more straightforward action film. There's nothing wrong with that, it's still competently made and interesting to watch, but it didn't mesh with my expectations. Probably not a film I'm going to rewatch.

Originally Posted by Rath

Fuck me, even the menu for the Persepolis blu-ray is beautifully made.

Stunning film, though either incredibly bleak or incredibly hopeful, depending on what message you prefer to take away from it. Or both, if you can juggle.

Despite the inherent bleakness "Persepolis" always struck me as an ultimately optimistic film. It's a testament to how love and kindness can prosper even in harsh environments and how you should fight for the causes you believe in. Of course, since the film is mostly a factual retelling of biographic events, any interpretation of it probably says more about the outlook of the viewer than that of the author.

Beasts of the Southern Wild: For a 90 minute film that I didn't particularly dislike, that sure felt long. It's hard to pick out anything really great or horrible about it; the little girl did a good job and there was some stirring shots but it was pretty forgettable besides that. Could be I'm just jaded towards such blatant Oscar baiting after The King's Speech cleaned house.

Well, about "themes" or "messages", I'll leave analysis to Americans... but I didn't see slavery/racism( or anything really) as a major theme of this movie and doubt Tarantino or whoever made a script cared much about that. Doubt anyone even thought "Slavey and racism are bad" as a message of this move. We have some bad guys, they are slavers or KKK so killing them in gruesome OTT ways is apparently accptable. And exactly that happens. Fin.

Django Unchained is to slavery what Inglourious Basterds was to the Holocaust.

Basically, just a film where you get to watch people enact righteous vengeance.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Watched it in a theater with original voice acting and Russian subtitles. Sound itself wasn't very good( maybe theaters fault, not sure), some dialogues were buried under a very loud music or sound effects, so I had to look at subtitles more often then I wanted to in cases when I'd normally have no problem understanding.

I don't usually enjoy Tarantino movies but this was entertaining and funny. A bit disturbing sometimes. Violence was over the top and funny in a black comedy way, except when a girl recieved lashes or guy got ripped to shreds by dogs. But that wasn't supposed to be funy. Everything else was more or less a long build up for the final shootout. And the second one.

Acting was ok. Not sure why so many people are giving so much credit to C. Waltz. Sure he is a good actor, but there wasn't anything outstanding in his performance in my opinion, maybe that bit at the end but not through the whole movie. Dicaprio was playing himself it seems, not bad. Jamie Fox was ok, his wife character had little screentime and was mostly just a plot device. Samuel Jackson was the only one who impressed me in any way, largely because he didn't look like his usual badass character and I thought he is stuck in that role forever.

Well, about "themes" or "messages", I'll leave analysis to Americans... but I didn't see slavery/racism( or anything really) as a major theme of this movie and doubt Tarantino or whoever made a script cared much about that. Doubt anyone even thought "Slavey and racism are bad" as a message of this move. We have some bad guys, they are slavers or KKK so killing them in gruesome OTT ways is apparently accptable. And exactly that happens. Fin.

Very nice and funny movie. Long but never boring. Visually good without a CGI overload.

The sound issue I'd attribute to the cinema, I had no problem with the audio when I saw it and never thought the music drowned out anyone talking.

The thing I like about Waltz is that for a lot of the world, he's very fresh. He also has a great voice and a way of talking that makes listening to him go on and on enjoyable rather than a choir. As an example, Bruce Willis made some great movies and I'd watch him kill all the bad guys, but don't ask him to deliver a five minute monologue.

Dicaprio hated his character and had to be convinced to go all out with him. The scene *spoiler* where he cuts his hand, is actually an accident that happened on set, that's his blood and they went with it because he just carried on and used it.

Django Unchained is to slavery what Inglourious Basterds was to the Holocaust.

Basically, just a film where you get to watch people enact righteous vengeance.

Inglorious Basterds was satirizing revenge fantasies more so than celebrating them though. The titular basterds aren't meant to be heroes. Django Unchained is a lot more straightforward by comparison. For all their flaws, we're clearly supposed to sympathize with Django and Schultz.

Also from first glance it seems to be about propaganda films with Inglorious Basterds kind of being constructed as a Western Propaganda film with the ridiclous killing of Hitler being explained that way.

Inglorious Basterds was satirizing revenge fantasies more so than celebrating them though. The titular basterds aren't meant to be heroes. Django Unchained is a lot more straightforward by comparison. For all their flaws, we're clearly supposed to sympathize with Django and Schultz.

Sympathize with the protagonists?

Fuck that. I just wanna see a bunch of dead Nazis/slavers.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Berberian Sound Studio: Rubbish. I was lulled in by the excellent soundtrack (RIP Trish Keenan) but ultimately BSS felt like a film school fapjob by someone who just watched their first David Lynch film.